Difference between revisions of "RS Oph paper meetings"
| (24 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
{{Date|2022-06-22}} | {{Date|2022-06-22}} | ||
| − | * Discussion | + | * Discussion: |
| + | :- How do we find the best cuts for RS Oph using MC data? The AllSky MC prod, only Testing gammas are available (no protons). What do we consider for the background? We could use real background data to estimate the background. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * To be done: | ||
| + | :- Use efficiency cuts to obtain a cut that survives significant amount of gammas. Using the best cuts, do the high level analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Slides | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Mab [[Media:RSOph_220622-2.pdf]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Yukiho [[Media:RSOph_AllSky_Yukiho_20220622.pdf]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Arnau [[Media:AllSkyMC-20220622_compressed.pdf|Aguasca-20220622 (wrong AllSky MC analysis)]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Date|2022-07-21}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion: | ||
| + | :- Mab observed weird SED points for E<100 GeV despite having a low energy threshold (of around 50 GeV). | ||
| + | :- We do not have to do a cut optimisation as Arnau was doing based on the sensitivity value. We have to use a given efficiency cut in gammaness, for example, 90%, and use the corresponding cuts in gammas for the different energy bins. Rubén suggested applying a theta cut of 0.2 or 0.3 deg before computing the efficiency cut in gammaness due to the long tails of the PSF (as it is done in the Crab performance paper) | ||
| + | :- The integral flux points above 250 GeV are not significant (+o- 2 sigmas), use upper limits. | ||
* To be done: | * To be done: | ||
| + | :- Finish the analysis. | ||
| + | :- Investigate how the upper limits are computed in gammapy | ||
*Slides | *Slides | ||
| − | :* Mab | + | :* Mab |
| − | :* Yukiho [[Media: | + | :* Yukiho |
| + | |||
| + | :* Arnau [[Media:AllSkyMC-20220721.pdf|Aguasca-20220721 (cut optimization)]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Date|2022-09-29}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion: | ||
| + | :- The results differ between analysers. | ||
| + | :- Arnau observed in his analysis that the excess counts change significantly between runs. Probably because his analysis is highly affected by background fluctuations (1 OFF regions, geff=90%, teff=68%) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * To be done: | ||
| + | :- Coordinate between analysers to check our scripts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Slides | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Mab [[Media:RSOphUpdates.pdf|Mab-20220929]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Yukiho [[Media:LST1 RSOph Yukiho 20220929.pdf|Yukiho-20220929]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Arnau [[Media:AguascaCabot-20220929 slides compressed.pdf|Aguasca-20220929]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Date|2022-11-02}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion: | ||
| + | :- Now our scripts give consistent results between the analysers. | ||
| + | :- All the analysers show we are highly affected by background fluctuations. We should have a proper discussion with the LST-reco WG. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * To be done: | ||
| + | :- Fix a given analysis (cuts) based on the discussion in the next LST-reco call. | ||
| + | :- Start the discussion about the paper. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Slides | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Mab | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Yukiho | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Arnau [[Media:AguascaCabot-20221102.pdf|Aguasca-20221102]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Date|2022-11-23}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Slides | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Mab | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Yukiho [[Media:LST1 RSOph Yukiho 20221123.pdf|Yukiho-20221123]] | ||
:* Arnau | :* Arnau | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Date|2023-03-22}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Slides | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Yukiho [[Media:LST1 RSOph Yukiho 20230323.pdf|Yukiho-20230322]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Arnau [[Media:20230322-AguascaCabot.pdf|Aguasca-20230322]] | ||
Latest revision as of 09:31, 23 March 2023
2022-02-09
Kick off meeting, division of the work. We decided that we should To be done: LST analysis, Fermi analysis, we decided not to go for optical analysis => will use the data that will be published by MAGIC
2022-02-23
- To be done:
- - LST analysis
- - produce MC production with specific NSB parameters, zenith and azimuth angles for RS Oph observation conditions.
2022-03-09
- Discussion
- - Runs in dark conditions present similar pixel charge distribution. We exclude the ones with runs affected by moon or strange distribution.
- Presented
- - First results using the IRFs computed by lstmcpipe.
- - First result analysis RS Oph with Fermi data
- To be done:
- - Several checks using the Crab. Using 3 different datasets: 20201120, September 2021 and March 2022. For the MC prod, use the same one that we use for RS Oph (parameters for dark conditions)
- - Compare IRF/sensitivity for our MC prod with the standard MC prod.
2022-03-30
- Discussion
- - Use new MC production for the RS Oph analysis
- To be done:
- - Use the best spectral model for each day to plot the daily flux.
- - Cross-check Jakub's UL implementation using gammapy.
- Slides
2022-04-13
- Discussion
- - Optimised cuts using Crab data may not be optimal because of the different spectral index between RS Oph and Crab Nebula. Maybe it is better to obtain the best quality cuts using MC simulations weighted to the spectral index of RS Oph.
- - Analysis of ULs for the data after moon break using gammapy is complicated because we do not have significant detection (\sim 2 sig).
- To be done:
- - Castro's plots.
- - Investigate how to implement UL calculation.
- Slides
- Mab
- Media:13042022_RS_Ophiuchi_Analysis_update_MabBernardos_compressed.pdf
- Yukiho
- Media:RSOphYukiho20220413.pdf
- Arnau
- Aguasca-20220413 source-dependent analysis
2022-06-22
- Discussion:
- - How do we find the best cuts for RS Oph using MC data? The AllSky MC prod, only Testing gammas are available (no protons). What do we consider for the background? We could use real background data to estimate the background.
- To be done:
- - Use efficiency cuts to obtain a cut that survives significant amount of gammas. Using the best cuts, do the high level analysis.
- Slides
2022-07-21
- Discussion:
- - Mab observed weird SED points for E<100 GeV despite having a low energy threshold (of around 50 GeV).
- - We do not have to do a cut optimisation as Arnau was doing based on the sensitivity value. We have to use a given efficiency cut in gammaness, for example, 90%, and use the corresponding cuts in gammas for the different energy bins. Rubén suggested applying a theta cut of 0.2 or 0.3 deg before computing the efficiency cut in gammaness due to the long tails of the PSF (as it is done in the Crab performance paper)
- - The integral flux points above 250 GeV are not significant (+o- 2 sigmas), use upper limits.
- To be done:
- - Finish the analysis.
- - Investigate how the upper limits are computed in gammapy
- Slides
- Mab
- Yukiho
2022-09-29
- Discussion:
- - The results differ between analysers.
- - Arnau observed in his analysis that the excess counts change significantly between runs. Probably because his analysis is highly affected by background fluctuations (1 OFF regions, geff=90%, teff=68%)
- To be done:
- - Coordinate between analysers to check our scripts.
- Slides
- Mab Mab-20220929
- Yukiho Yukiho-20220929
- Arnau Aguasca-20220929
2022-11-02
- Discussion:
- - Now our scripts give consistent results between the analysers.
- - All the analysers show we are highly affected by background fluctuations. We should have a proper discussion with the LST-reco WG.
- To be done:
- - Fix a given analysis (cuts) based on the discussion in the next LST-reco call.
- - Start the discussion about the paper.
- Slides
- Mab
- Yukiho
- Arnau Aguasca-20221102
2022-11-23
- Slides
- Mab
- Yukiho Yukiho-20221123
- Arnau
2023-03-22
- Slides
- Yukiho Yukiho-20230322
- Arnau Aguasca-20230322
